McClain v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 JONATHAN M. MCCLAIN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01193-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. EXTENSION OF TIME 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 SECURITY MARTIN O’MALLEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 28). 18 Plaintiff is representing himself pro se. On April 25, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show 19 Cause, resetting the Deadline for Plaintiff to file his Opening Brief to May 16, 2025. Dkt. No. 27 20 (Amended Order to Show Cause). On May 15, 2025, in lieu of an opening brief, Plaintiff mailed 21 the instant motion, which the Court received on May 19, 2025. Dkt. No. 28 at 4. Because 22 Plaintiff mailed his motion before the deadline, and in the absence of any objection by 23 Defendant, the Court will treat the motion as timely filed. Having considered the unopposed 24 motion and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. 1 Plaintiff initiated this case on September 4, 2024, with a complaint that appeared to bring 2 claims related to two separate decisions by the Commissioner of Social Security: a termination of 3 benefits in 2002 or 2003 and a denial of benefits that became final in 2024. Dkt. No. 6 at 1–2. 4 The Court previously dismissed the claims related to the termination—a decision Plaintiff has

5 unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and the Court of Appeals—and directed Defendant 6 to file the Social Security Certified Administrative Record related to the 2024 denial. See Dkt. 7 No. 27 at 1–2 (recounting procedural history in depth). The Court has since set several deadlines 8 for Plaintiff to file his opening brief on the remaining claim. Dkt. Nos. 15, 21, 27. 9 In his Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff asks the Court to again extend the deadline 10 because “Plaintiff’s Advocate is dealing with medical issues and needs additional time to file 11 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief.” Dkt. No. 28 at 1. Plaintiff has proceeded pro se in his case thus far, 12 but he represented in his motion that he “cannot file his own brief.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff does not 13 specify who his “Advocate” is, whether that person is an attorney, or how much time would be 14 needed for the Opening Brief to be prepared. See generally id. The Court notes that the Social

15 Security Act permits qualified non-attorneys to represent social security claimants before the 16 Commissioner and the Appeals Counsel, but “[t]here is no parallel provision in the Act 17 authorizing the Commissioner to permit non-attorney representation of claimants in proceedings 18 before the courts.” Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. 19 § 406(a)(1)). 20 Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that he has an interest in prosecuting his case and has 21 taken steps toward accomplishing that goal. Additionally, federal courts have a strong policy in 22 favor of resolving issues on their merits. See, e.g., Chao Chen v. Geo Grp., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 23 1130, 1132 (W.D. Wash. 2018). The Court therefore FINDS good cause not to dismiss Plaintiff’s

24 case for failure to prosecute at this time. ] Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 (1) The Court AMENDS the scheduling order as follows: Plaintiff's Opening Brief will 3 be due July 18, 2025, Defendant’s Response Brief will be due August 18, 2025, 4 and Plaintiff's Optional Reply Brief will be due September 2, 2025. 5 (2) The Court ADVISES Plaintiff of the following: 6 a. If Plaintiff is represented by an attorney for this proceeding, his attorney 7 must enter an appearance in the case. Unless and until an attorney enters 8 their appearance on the docket, Plaintiff continues to represent himself pro 9 se. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and are 10 responsible for meeting all and complying with all orders of the Court. 11 Failure to do so may result in sanctions. 12 b. To provide notice to Defendant and the Court of the grounds Plaintiff 13 believes require reversal of the 2024 denial of his disability claim, the 14 Opening Brief must list and explain all the errors Plaintiff believes the 15 Administrative Law Judge committed in finding him not disabled. The 16 Opening Brief must include citations to the transcript of record that was 17 filed in this case (Dkt. No. 14) that support Plaintiff's arguments. 18 c. If Plaintiff fails to file his Opening Brief or show good cause for an 19 additional extension by July 18, 2025, this matter will be dismissed for 20 failure to prosecute. If filing via mail, Plaintiff SHALL ensure he mails his 21 Opening Brief in sufficient time for it to arrive on or before July 18, 2025. 22 || Dated this 3rd day of June 2025. 23 © at ZO Tana Lin 24 United States District Judge